From the comments:
… what is really getting me nowadays is the religious aspect some people have for this. How they are CONVINCED that this is somehow special or uniquely dangerous, even when the data has been very clear that it’s not. I’m talking about all of the mask wearing, and reports on politicians who get the sniffles, and discussions about whether we can have football games in the fall. Seriously?
WE NEVER ACTED THIS WAY BEFORE, WHY NOW?!?!?!!?!People always need to believe in something.
You see Frank, there is something that I think that you have never attained and that is a sense of how your words affect other people. What good does your anti-coronavirus lockdown rhetoric have on the public?
ReplyDeleteIf the lockdown is in fact a bad strategy — as many think it is — my rhetoric will have a salutary effect. What, are we not supposed to raise questions, but just go along with whatever policies are put in place whether they prove effective or not. Many of those questioning the lockdown are quite qualified to raise objections. This isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of evidence. As for how my words may affect other people, well I sure hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely a need to question any and all decisions, any and all policies. Where I diverge from you, Frank, is the way you are doing it at the moment: the seeming near-arrogance(emphasis on 'seeming')with which you assign panic to an approach with which you disgree; in which you earlier called fear 'unbecoming'.
ReplyDeleteUnbecoming? It's a natural human emotion which helps protect us from threats, perceived or real. And even panic can help us to make split-second decisions, so long as it doesn't develop into a paralysing attack.
If you wish to sneer at disagreement with your approach as 'gee whizz, my bad for hurting someone's feelings', a little more humility and self-criticisnm is in order.
A friend has to be willing to speak frankly at times. So feel free to object: I assure you, my feelings won't be hurt--and it wouldn't matter if they were!
The articles that I post that are critical of the conventional wisdom regarding the lockdown, etc. tend to be written by highly qualified professionals. Yet they elicit reflexive objections of the "yes, but" sort by people whose qualifications are only that they subscribe to the conventional wisdom. So I don't see any engagement with evidence and argument. And yes, I know that fear is natural, though I happen to have a high threshold for it. It is more than unbecoming if it gets in the way of doing what needs to be done in a dangerous situation. For some reason, when I am in danger I focus intently on the problem. (I do tend to fall apart afterwards.) As for panic, it is considered to be a psychological disorder. Social psychologists consider it to be infectious. I am continually reminded these days of Oliver Cromwell's famous remark: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." As for criticism, I am blithely indifferent to it. It grieves me that I can no longer tell people to google inquirer, wilson, cormac, and asshole, so they could see all the people around the country who took umbrage at my criticism of The Road. My remark about hurting people's feelings was meant as sarcasm. The members of the Society of the Sacred Heart who taught me in grade school placed much emphasis on politeness. I would never knowingly hurt someone's feelings. Anyway I just posted a link today arguing that Sweden's coronavirus strategy will soon be the world's. It's in Foreign Affairs, rather a respected journal.
ReplyDelete"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
ReplyDeleteMy point, exactly.
I'm going to take on some of your points.
ReplyDelete1.'Yet they elicit reflexive objections of the "yes, but" sort by people whose qualifications are only that they subscribe to the conventional wisdom. So I don't see any engagement with evidence and argument.'
There is hardly a single conventional view. That aside, let's take just the single example of pathologist Klaus Püsche, cited in the Bild/Breitbart piece you link to, the basis of whose anti-lockdown stance has been openly disputed by virologist Christian Drosten, both respected professors in their fields in Germany. No qualifications?
There are plenty of other examples, but I expect this comment will become too long to read, if it hasn't already.
2. Panic is only considered to be pathological when it becomes a disorder.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence for panic in the current situation--expert evidence. (I'm not disputing that some people may have been panicking--and panic-buying--but I have yet to see any actual evidence that there is the sort of widespread social panic which you seem to observe.)
3. Sarcasm: sure, accepted. However, you should be aware that I often find that sarcasm is used as an excuse to mask a dismissive attitude.
4. Sweden: see my comment on that post.